28 October 2012 1:03 AM

Enter a church and you should hear echoes of eternity - not the Sugababes

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column:

I think the Church of England has just committed suicide. Its decision to allow grotesque, overblown weddings in its churches is an act so desperate and hopeless that I fear there is no return.Beneath the ancient arches of our parish churches we shall soon be enduring the music of the Sugababes and watching trained owls deliver matching rings to overdressed couples sitting on fake thrones, as photographers lean in as close as they can, to film the crucial moment.With the support of the strangely overrated John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, parsons are to be instructed to swallow their doubts and permit any kind of rubbishy vulgarity. The excuse is that, in some way, this treatment will persuade the men and women involved to forsake the cocktail bar and the tanning parlour, and become regular churchgoers.Everyone but a bishop can see quite clearly that it will do no such thing. The victims of these nasty, extravagant ceremonies will never enter a church again.Just as Groucho Marx wouldn’t belong to a club that would have him as a member, people will have no respect for a church that is obviously so desperate to welcome them that it will take money in return for ditching its principles.The whole point of churches is to disturb our day-to-day lives with the haunting rhythms and poetry of eternity. If we go into them and find that they are just like the nearest shopping mall, only with nicer architecture, then we will turn away disappointed.I don’t know if anything could have saved Christianity in England from becoming a despised minority religion. But I am quite sure that these pathetic attempts to appease the spirit of the modern age have made things much, much worse.Even 50 years ago, the Christian religion still had the attention and loyalty of many serious people. Now, even those of us who still stick to it find it hard to defend our supposed leaders.I suppose it will continue to survive in a few odd corners, its ceremonies performed for foreign tourists in the more picturesque cathedrals.But for the rest, many centuries of faith, hope and charity are ending not with a bang, or even a whimper, but with ‘Here Come The Girls’.

Spiritual symbol... or centre of a new world power?

How little we know about the Islamic world, even though a large and growing number of British subjects are Muslims. I am strangely haunted by recent pictures of Mecca.They show a monstrous clock tower dominating all around, surmounted by a huge crescent. To me, it looks more like the burgeoning capital of a new global power than the austere spiritual goal of millions of devout pilgrims.What a pity that I cannot go there to see for myself. I’ve found my way into North Korea, into Soviet nuclear facilities and the remotest corners of China. I’ve even slipped into Iranian Shia shrines, and been much impressed with the devotion of the worshippers.Yet for reasons I’ve never fully understood, Islam’s holiest place is closed to Christians. How are we going to understand each other properly if such barriers continue to stand?

Our pointless cult of human sacrifice

Have you noticed how keen we are getting on human sacrifice? I don’t (quite yet) mean the actual slaughter of people to soothe the rage of angry pre-Christian gods.But I do mean the furious denunciations of individuals, whether it be Andrew Mitchell or Jimmy Savile, usually done to quell the wrath of the mob. In many cases, the mob is furious because it hates in other people the things it dislikes in itself. How many of Mr Mitchell’s attackers have never sworn when they shouldn’t have, and have never lost their tempers?How many of Savile’s noisiest critics are secret viewers of pornography? It’s not that I want to defend Mr Mitchell for being rude, let alone defend the Savile creature for his gross appetites. It’s just that I don’t think frenzies do any good.When all this is over, the Government will be the same (as it always is after some Minister or other has been driven from office). And the BBC will be the same too, still judge and jury in its own cause and scornful of conservative opinions and morals held by millions of its licence-payers.For a lot of people, the last Election was, at heart, a chance to pillory and destroy Gordon Brown (or the person they imagined him to be). My belief is that they were mainly furious with themselves for having been so completely fooled by Mr Brown’s smooth sidekick, Anthony Blair. But as they ejected the scowling Labour leader from Downing Street, they replaced him with a man whose politics are pretty much exactly the same. Another human sacrifice.A grown-up country is interested in policies, not in punishing individuals. But we are not grown-ups any more, just children rushing this way and that as the TV tells us.

Had they lived to be really old, would Stalin and Hitler have ended up as pottering old geezers in straw hats, peering out at us from behind grizzled beards? And would we have softened towards them as a result? Well, I cannot soften to the old killer and torturer Fidel Castro, despite recent pictures of him doddering around Havana, looking as if he has escaped from a pensioners’ outing. I still see blood, and hear screams.

This government, like the last, is very good at figures. Crime figures are down. Unemployment figures are down. Inflation figures are down. Funny, isn’t it, that in our actual, real lives, crime and disorder get worse, prices rocket upwards and factories are closing. How can that be?

When I read in August that the talented Hollywood film director Tony Scott had killed himself without any apparent good reason, I was fairly sure that pretty soon we would find that the poor man had been taking ‘antidepressants’.Well, a preliminary autopsy has found ‘therapeutic’ levels of an ‘antidepressant’ in his system. I take no pleasure in being right, but as the scale of this scandal has become clear to me, I have learned to look out for the words ‘antidepressant’ or ‘being treated for depression’ in almost any case of suicide and violent, bizarre behaviour. And I generally find it. The science behind these pills is extremely dubious. Their risks are only just beginning to emerge. It is time for an inquiry.

It is now 25 days since I asked Edward Miliband’s office if he had received private tuition while at his comprehensive school. Why am I still waiting for an answer?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Mr Dodd, you have ask a question that I'm unable to answer, under free speech and democracy. All I can do is advise you to read professors facts about cross breeding of different human species. If you read one of the comments I made to Mr Doyle it will have some names you can look up and read their views on different human species.

Posted by: Jerry Owen | 03 November 2012 at 04:39 PM
If I have contempt for anything its holding opinions based on nothing more than the desire that they be right. Without evidence opinions are fine but largely pointless. (On exactly what basis do you reject that we evolved from different animals? Or that we an modern apes share ancient ancestors?) We are all free the believe what we like but when your views are not backed by any real evidence for me at least they have very little value.
The" theory" I outlined to you is trackable (I.e. can be seen) in the observed genetic differences between North European and African genomes. The same is also true for looking at differences between modern humans and chimpanzezes sees.
And Even the palest of people have the melanin gene (its expression provides the pigment in freckles.) I am not claiming my ideas are 100% correct just that they can be backed up with real reproducable science.
And you ask questions the answers to may or may not be Genetic in origin but if they are genetic how they got there is it could be argued largely irrelevant, but if you do want to an explanation for their presence using a consistent and logical methodology to determine how this happened. It well be that North Europeans have a collection of genes that make them better problem solvers. I personally have no problem with science looking for such differences or for suggesting that the demands made on humans >50k years ago in Europe may have meant that sharper lighter skinned people got selected for.
And I've read quite a bit about homeopathy to date I've found nothing in it worth repeating. And lecturing people on the role of ego in science from someone who believes in stuff on the basis of hte desire to have it be right is surely a bit rich?

John of Dorset
Thank you for your post of 5th. Nov at 1:22am
1. Mind and body
How do thought and feeling on one side.and the brain on the other interact?
It is a very difficult question . I do not know the answer.
That said, there must be some link.
Damage to the brain can impair thought and feeling.
Do you think that anyone could think and feel without a brain any more than they could dance without legs?
But then there is the placebo effect. Somehow, faith and hope can have physical effects.
What do you think about artificial intelligence? Do you think that computers might one day think for themselves?
2. The spirit.
I am not sure what the apostles meant when they talked about the spirit. But I do not think they were thinking about how good someone is at maths.
3. Cinderella.
The snag is that we do not know who first told the story and what he or she might have meant by it. Have you ever thought that maybe someone just wanted to tell a story?

"I think that tells us all just how much you know about this subject; Nil.
A. G. Rawlings |

Yes, yes, of course A G, your towering intellect dwarfs my puny efforts, sigh!, but, before we put this to bed, could you tell me the Latin names for the many different species of humans (other than homo sapien) inhabiting our planet today?
You see, all species have their own unique Latin names, and these great scientists whose words you keep urging me to read, must have names for the various different species of human they teach you so much about. So, just one will do even.
Here's a clue: they'll start with word Homo, it'll be Homo something or other. Homo fervensflatulus perhaps? or maybe Homo Ignarus? (there quite a lot of those alive today I think), what about Homo Bovisfaeces? the possibilities are endless!
I believe I belong to the species known as Homo sapien, as do the Negro, Chinaman, and all the other races on this planet. There are no other species of human, and if you think there are; then you have a lot to learn.
Bottom line A.G.: if you can't provide me with the Latin names (I cant speak it btw) for these different species of human alive today; then lets just leave it there.

Peter Preston |
Thank you for your post of 6th. Nov. at 11:06am.
Speaking for myself, I do not mind people paraphrasing me as long as they paraphrase accurately and fairly.
If I have misunderstood your posts of 1st. Nov. at 4:55pm. & 31st. Oct at 11:58am,
please tell me how.
If I have twisted your words,. please tell me how.

"First you say ‘But Curtis, you are not applying the principle of innocent till proven guilty’"

Not so, sir. I never address other contributors to the forum by the names under which hey write. I would be much obliged, if in referring to what I had written earlier you would kindly quote my actual words rather than a paraphrase of your own composition. Thank you..

Here is the answer you gave me about as all being the same, with on difference whatsoever.
Mr Doyle, are you telling me that we are one human race and one single species?"
A.G.Rawlings.
Yes I am! Nov 4th, please read your comment and as yet you cannot answer any questions about human species or professors views; I think that tells us all just how much you know about this subject; Nil.

"Mr Doyle, please try and understand your earlier response; in which you clearly stated (4th Nov) that we are one human race and one single species"

Firstly, nowhere did I say we were one race, that's fact OK? I certainly said we are one species though, because that's exactly what we are. You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between race, and species. They are two wholly different things. The Negro is not a different species; he's a different race.
That's it from me A. G. its betting a bit silly.

Sex is not evil, but a Christian who does not have sex is better than one who does.
A good Christian would renounce marriage, and presumably sex, for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 19 10-12.

Posted by: Curtis | 03 November 2012 at 07:16 PM

John of Dorset has given a good response to this but I would just add that in in 1 Corinthians 7:2 it says “Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” Marriage is encouraged then, to keep us from sin. Also, one of the very first commandments given to Adam and Eve was to multiply and replenish the earth.

Paul did refer to his celibacy as a "gift" but he also said "But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that” (1 Corinthians 7:7) and he was careful to not refer to it as a commandment. (verse 6)
He also told Timothy (1 Tim. 4:1-3) that ".....some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry,..." In other words; it was wrong to preach celibacy.

Jesus' words in Matthew are harder for me to understand but to me Paul is only saying, singleness can be a gift. We all receive the gift of singleness at least temporarily but for some people it becomes permanent. For those that marry the gift of marriage replaces the gift of singleness. For a variety of reasons there will be people that don't find a suitable spouse. Those circumstances will allow them to do things that married people would not be as able to do. But I don't believe Paul was teaching that celibacy was preferred.
If we were to take this statement: “I wish that all men were [unmarried] as I am." by Paul literally, then the human population would have died out a long time ago. And given the totality of other verses by him, I don't think that was the intention.

Mr Doyle, please try and understand your earlier response; in which you clearly stated (4th Nov) that we are one human race and one single species. Can you show me any professor’s views on we are all medically the same; like a horse that is no different from a donkey. I think you have not a clue about differences in human species, hence the reason that you are superior to anyone that talks and lives in reality. Here is some questions for you to not answer, like you have not on other questions; 1: is your European skull the same size and shape as an African skull 2: is your European bone structure different from African bone structure, 3 how many different bloods types are there in our human species, 4: and finally, please give us all including Mr Hitchens; some medical facts of how advanced you are over medical experts.

At the risk of feeding your vice, I shall nonetheless point out the flaws in your latest nonsensical pieces. I shall need to be concise so please, if at the end you still feel you are right, just ask me to elaborate.

1. hitchensblog.mailonsunday. Smut free.

2. Your allegation that the mail website is a porn website is simply untrue. I agree it’s content is inappropriate, indeed I avoid it for that reason. But you cannot legitimately equate a visitor to its website to a visitor of a website that focuses solely on, and promotes itself as, porn. Your attempt to justify your position in this way is no more than the use of falsehood.

3. "A Freudian analyst would be seeing big Dollar signs at this point if he had you on his couch."
With respect, I think anyone with a clean mind would find your ability to notice the obscure potential for perversity a more appropriate matter for analysis.

4. You were not called a hypocrite for admitting your enthusiasm for porn. Rather, it was your position that there is nothing wrong with it and it is enjoyable for women yet you would be mortified if your daughter participated. I have no idea why you are now claiming that you are unjustly being called a hypocrite for admitting to and advocating porn. That is not that case.

5. Dr Johnson's point is that one can rightly condemn something even if not innocent of it oneself. You have extrapolated that this would not apply where the person pretended to be innocent of it. Why would you say that? The point is that the charge of hypocrisy cannot be attributed to the person’s actions, for his viewpoint may be in line with his condemnation, not his action. Therefore, his denial of actions makes him a liar, not a hypocrite.

Moreover, that is all only relevant where said person deliberately indulges in that matter. However if a person does indeed practice constant continence yet is subjected, not through his own attempts, to porn; he would still be said to have constant continence.

6. (Sebastian) But I am still upset at being called a hypocrite by Elaine. Perhaps I am. But.. {etc.}
(Sebastian) I am not happy to be called anything by the Pilgrim lady whose turgid prose etc.
(Elaine) Yeah, whatever.... I guess you're not going to take that other guy's advice and stop digging, etc.
(Sebastian) “Yeah, whatever.... "Translates as "You have set out an argument that I am unable to counter so I will say something, anything, however idiotic, as that might look better than saying nothing."

In fact, you haven’t set out any argument for Elaine to counter. All you’ve done is admit perhaps you are a hypocrite, still justify your position and then, without refuting Elaine’s point, proceed to insult her. Your own post insulting Elaine actually seems to be a way of ‘saying something, anything, however idiotic’, to avoid refuting her (still unrefuted) arguments.

"Thus meaning that you know far more than they do, on no medical differences internally; meaning that we are a single race with no difference whatsoever."

A.G.

Single species A.G., not race. Of course we have different races, but gene pools define species, and you are talking about gene pools. Sub specific variety (within the gene pool) defines race. Pretty simple I would have thought.

I agree entirely but my point was not that folk needed Christianity in particular to justify anything but that it is just one more thing used to justify heinous acts and it is neither better or worse than any of the rest in this basic respect. My only addition would be that claiming to represent the divine, seems to me, can make folk more inclined to excuse the persecution of others they see as offending their version of the divine.

I think it is a major mistake to think that fairy tales were invented by people aiming at the sort of crass realism we see amongst many modern novelists. Cinderella was most certainly not meant simply to express the oppression of domestic servants and step children.

The Spirit, or the Intellectual, is most obviously real, as shown in Number, Geometry, Ratios, etc. Pure materialism or naturalism, which are always vague and never really define what matter or nature is, is incoherent. That is, the world and our knowledge of it incontestably incorporates elements that are not simply sensual or material. This was taken as obvious until the 1960s, when a new ignorance of the history of thought became general among intellectuals.

Plato illustrates an aspect of this truth in the Phaedo. In the sensible, or material, world there is no such thing as true equality (not simply of human beings, but of anything, like two equal amounts of wood). Nor is there such a thing as a perfect triangle (with three perfectly straight sides) or circle. Yet, we have knowledge of these things, we know what equality is, and we know what what the nature of shape is.

Another example, again from Plato, is the observation that the sensible world is one of flux and change, corruption and generation. What is in one place at one time is in another, another time. What is beautiful once is ugly now. Yet, to have truth and knowledge we must speak of what does not change. Truth and true knowledge cannot subject to constant flux. Therefore, we must seek the true cause of sensible phenomena not simply in the efficient and immediate causes of the world of becoming, but in the intellectual realm.

Or we may turn to the mind. The mind has qualities of which it is absurd to speak of in terms of matter, as naturalists vaguely utilise the concept. As C.S Lewis noted, to talk of one bit of matter in our brain being true of another bit of matter, like the dog we are talking about, makes no sense. Or take Paris. When you think of Paris, in what sense are your thoughts about Paris? How does your mind perceive and conceive of the city of Paris, with all that makes it up? Pure naturalism and materialism, which would make the mind simply matter (though not really define matter) simply cannot answer such questions with any sort of coherency.

Now, the Spirit means more simply that recognition of Intellectual realm, that sensual knowledge and realities are not all the knowledge and realities there are. But it is a big part of what is meant by the Spirit.

The traditional Christian view of sex, in its broadest perspective, is complex. There are valid, but limited, traditional Christian perspectives that stress virginity as superior to marriage in a less profound way. That is, they are talking only at the relatively mundane le vel of removing conflicts with worldliness and that sort of thing. There is certain truth in this for some. We forget, in the modern world, that celibacy is a real choice and path. I would argue that marriage and sexuality are, however, capable of being part of life as pious and Godly as those of most monks and priests and others who embrace celibacy. Only the highest Saint and mystic might have a celibacy that, I feel (though I'm not certain they even need celibacy), is absolutely to the married life as they are so human and so divine that they virtually incorporate all the aspects of human nature into themselves; they surpass sexuality, as it were.

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions ..."

None of which applies to you, who advocate and loudly trumpet the pleasures and advantages of pornography.

Well Mr Doyle,
I’m sorry that you have not commented on the comments I made from Mr Gesell that go against your views. You as a person with no professional job in genes, mentality, bone structure, and brain structure; have gone against most medical experts on the difference in species. Thus meaning that you know far more than they do, on no medical differences internally; meaning that we are a single race with no difference whatsoever. With regard to your comment asking me what difference there are in dogs; I have looked at a poodle and a hound dog and decided that you are right and there is no difference whatsoever. That means that a thoroughbred race horse is the same as a donkey and should all have the same chance of running in the horse racing especially the Epson Derby. Here are yet again some names of people that do not know better than you do about species; William Howell’s R. Ruggles Gates, JV Neel, James F Bonner, Curt Stern Herman Muller, C.D. Darlington, R. Gayle, Charles Darwin, E Garret, Mr Philippe Rushton, Professor Wesley C. George, Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.